Is lying About Climate Change Okay?

Those of us who have chronicled the global warming hoax, now called “climate change”, know that it is based on decades of lies about carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse gas” with predictions that the Earth will heat up and cause massive problems unless those emissions are drastically reduced by not using coal, oil and natural gas.

Two American think tanks, The Heartland Institute and the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) have been among those exposing those lies for years. The lies have been generated and led by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

“Despite the panel’s insistence that the Earth is getting hotter, five different datasets show that there have been no observable warming for 17 and a half years even as carbon dioxide levels have risen 12%,” notes Christopher Monckton, a science advisor to Britain’s former Prime Minister Thatcher. “The discrepancy between prediction and observation continues to grow.”

Recently, two Chinese assistant professors of economics, Fuhai Hong and Xiaojian Zhao, were published in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics. Their paper, “Information Manipulation and Climate Agreements”, openly advocated lying about global warming/climate change in order to get nations to sign on to the International Environmental Agreement.

“It appears that news media and some pro-environmental organizations,” they noted, “have the tendency to accentuate or even exaggerate the damage caused by climate change. This article provides a rationale for this tendency.”

Craig Rucker, CFACT’s Executive Director, responded to the Chinese authors saying “They’re shameless.” Theirs and others ends-justify-the-means tactics reflects the attitudes and actions of environmental organizations and serves as a warning to never accept anything they say on any aspect of this huge hoax.

CFACT’s President and co-founder, David Rothbard, noted that “Global warming skeptics have long charged that alarmists are over-hyping the dangers of climate change.” How long? Back in 1989, the late Stanford University professor, Stephen Schneider, said, “So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ which we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance between being effective and being honest.”

There is no “right balance” between telling lies and telling the truth when it comes to science or any other aspect of our lives. Suffice to say that thousands of scientists who participated in the IPCC reports over the years supported the lies, but many have since left and some have openly denounced the reports.

As the latest IPCC summary of its report has garnered the usual verbatim media coverage of its outlandish predictions, The Heartland Institute has released its own 1,062 page report from the “Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) called “Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts. An 18-page summery is available at http://climatechangereconsidered.org.

Among its findings:

– Atmospheric carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.

– There is little or no risk of increasing food insecurity due to global warming or rising atmospheric CO2 levels.

– Rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels do not pose a significant threat to aquatic life.

- A modest warming of the planet will result in a net reduction of human mortality from temperature-related events.
Based on hundreds of peer-reviewed studies, the NIPCC report is free of the lies that are found in the IPCC report whose studies have been, at best, dubious, and at worst, deliberately deceptive.In light of the natural cooling cycle the Earth has been in that is good news and it will be even better news when the planet emerges from the cycle that reflects the lower levels of radiation from the Sun.

On March 31, CNS News reported that “The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s latest report estimates it will cost developed nations an additional $100 billion each year to help poorer nations adapt to the devastating effects of ‘unequivocal’ global warming, including food shortages, infrastructure breakdown, and civil violence. But that figure was deleted from the report’s executive summary after industrial nations, including the United States, objected to the high price tag.”

The price tag reveals the IPCC’s real agenda, the transfer of funds from industrial nations to those less developed. It’s about the money and always has been. It’s not global warming the planet needs to survive, it is the costly lies about it.

Best known these days as a commentator on issues ranging from environmentalism to energy, immigration to Islam, Alan Caruba is the author of two recent books, "Right Answers: Separating Fact from Fantasy" and "Warning Signs", both collections of his commentaries since 2000 and both published by Merril Press of Bellevue, Washington.
His commentaries are posted on many leading news and opinion websites, and frequently picked up and shared by blogs as well. Posted daily on his blog site, http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com, known as "Warning Signs", the founder of The National Anxiety Center's commentaries enjoy widespread popularity. The Center is a clearinghouse for information about 'scare campaigns' designed to influence public opinion and policy.

Leftists have always used lies to promote their beloved socialism, an economic system that delivers less prosperity than capitalism, at best, and much less prosperity and death (Soviet Union and China) at worst.

The only way to promote socialism is to lie about capitalism — usually by creating a belief that people who succeed under capitalism are taking wealth from people who don’t do well.

The “coming climate change catastrophe” prediction is just the latest political tool for socialists to attack Capitalism indirectly through (hoped for) new taxes on corporations for their energy usage or CO2 emissions.

Political and religious leaders have known for centuries that predicting a coming disaster, unless everyone does as they say, is an effective political tool to gain power over people The predicted disaster does not have to happen — this political tool is effective if most people merely believe a disaster is coming.

The primary climate change hoax is that humans can predict the future.

The secondary hoax is that computer models are scientific data.

Predicting the future with computer models has nothing to do with science, even if the people doing so have science degrees.

A strong case could be made in favor of increasing atmospheric CO2 to the 1,000 to 1,500 pppv range, which would be optimum for green plant growth, while having a minor effect on average temperature.

So far, most of the change in average temperature since weather satellites were launched in 1979 were in the northern half of the northern hemisphere on winter nights — I would like to see a survey of the few people who live in that part of Earth to see whether or not they would prefer MORE warming.

The “coming hole in the ozone layer catastrophe” was one of many prior lies used to attack capitalism. Didn’t work.

The coming climate change catastrophe lie could fall apart too, as the average temperature peaked in 1998.

If so, there will be another lie to attack capitalism.

I can’t predict what the new “threat” will be, but I’d bet it will be claimed to lead to a catastrophe unless everyone does as the leftists say.

Greens are the new reds — a different way to attack capitalism — much less obvious than the use of terrorism or military force, but potentially just as effective.

The past climate cycles have been Ice Ages separated by mild warming / cooling cycles — there’s no reason to assume the pattern has ended.

At least six glaciations have taken place with CO2 levels as high, or higher, than the present level — sometimes much higher.

Where is the IPCC explanation for how we could have been in Ice Ages with CO2 levels up to 10x or 20x higher than currently?

Rick Woodruff

peter taylor enviromentalist tells the truth..he nails them all on the head..the thieves and the rouges

http://www.humboldtlib.blogspot.com/ Fred Mangels

David Friedman- son of Milton- has been doing a series of posts recently on climate change. He’s somewhat of a believer, but still doesn’t mind taking a skeptical view of claims made by Believers. He’s actually taken to reading the most recent IPCC report. The link below takes you to one of those posts. There’s more if you check his blog:http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/2014/04/climate-nuts-vs-ipcc.html